Feds take custody of evidence from Zimmerman trial

Post Reply New Topic

Well, there's two facts:

(1) Martin and Jeantel were talking about the possibility of Z to be gay

(2) Two minutes later Martin was beating up on Z without any self-defense justification

I'm sorry if facts are disrepectfuls, dude.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... gay/67235/

Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. The liberals who cleaved to the Progressive Movement (Woodrow Wilson is a good examplar. Also Teddy Roosevelt) initially supported Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini was seen as an antidote for reactionary pro-monarchy politics in Europe.

It is interesting to note that the Progessive program as articulated by FDR during the New Deal coincides with 20 of 25 items in Hitler's program as outline in "Mein Kampf". Basically if you take Hitler's agenda and strip out the anti-Jewish and racial nonsense you end up with the Proressive agenda and the New Deal. Interesting, yes?

ruveyn

It's not that the right has totally clean hands, as a group we don't. However, we don't crow nearly as loudly and obnoxiously about civil rights as the left and, to me, that's hypocrisy on the part of the left.

Civil rights are bad? Really? Really? Without civil rights legislation, a huge swath of the American population would have been denied rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution.
And while Jefferson's words of government that governs least governs best are full of idealism, the truth is, idealism and reality are more often than not strangers to one another. I prefer the position since Lincoln, that the federal government exists to protect citizens from the mob mentality of the local and state level.
And the constitution isn't alive and breathing? The right to introduce amendments is it's heart beat.
And in closing - you really believe black Americans are given special status over whites by civil rights legislation? I don't know of a single black person in this country who seriously believes they have extra rights. And it's absurd to say whites are put at some sort of disadvantage by said civil rights. Case in point: blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate, and yet there are far more blacks who are arrested and sent to prison on drug charges. White privilege is undeniable. For whites to say otherwise makes them look like whiny b*****s.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

How is fighting for the rights of others hypocrisy?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

When it's done under false pretenses or in a pick and choose fashion like I said.

Yes, I'm familiar with Goldberg's book. What's more, I consider it to be a perfectly representative example of right-liberal hyperreality. The fact is that fascism and liberalism are irreconcilably different. Fascism developed in direct opposition not only to communism, but to liberalism as well. Probably the most distinct difference is that fascism directs its aggression toward foreigners and marginalized minorities while communism and its kissing cousin liberalism are about the state against its own citizens.

As far as programs and Mein Kampf go, the important thing isn't what politicians say, but what they do. In particular, FDR was a free trade globalist, while fascists developed something called autarky, which is economic self-sufficiency--the very opposite of free trade. Hitler was hellbent on invading the Soviet Empire not only for "lebensraum", but for resources so Germany could be completely self-sufficient. The reason for this was that after Germany surrendered in WWI, the Allies maintained a blockade under which almost a million Germans starved to death; fascists wanted to ensure nothing like this could ever happen again.

Here is a little-known tidbit along these lines: German gun laws were actually made extremely strict under the liberal Weimar Republic. Excepting firearms ownership for Jews, Hitler actually liberalized these laws in 1938. Of course, my point is hardly that fascism is good, but that liberalism is really, really bad.

Liberalism is the political expression that grew out of the Enlightenment of the philosophes, who were guided by a blinding hatred for Christianity, as evidenced by Voltaire's famous expression: Ecrasez l'infame, or destroy the infamous thing, meaning the church. Liberalism was born of the sin of hatred, and in the intervening 250 years it has done nothing to redeem itself.

Modern science was actually founded in part by Sir Francis Bacon, and his famous paradox: The only way to master nature is to obey nature, meaning that if we understand and abide by natural, or scientific laws, then we can manipulate nature to our advantage. The problem was that the Enlightenment philosophes thought that human nature was above mere science, and that human nature is either nonexistent or infinitely malleable. The problem of course is that we're not all equal, but different and unique, and human nature is very real, and something we disregard at our peril. So, liberals approach social problems the same way scientific phenomena were approached in the Dark Ages.

What real conservatism is is a belief system that posits God, society, and family above the individual; liberalism places the individual above all else, including reality itself. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve a particular people and their ways in a particular place and time. In other words, real conservatism is traditional because it is about ideas and procedures that have a time-tested track record of working. Liberalism, on the other hand, was cooked up by sick minds possessed by a blinding hatred for God and Christianity, and it shows in its bloody and tragic history, right up to the present.

"God, society and family above the individual . . . "
I'm not sure of God's intentions, but I'm always aware of the presence of greater intelligence.
Society . . . I'm not going to put my faith in other people.
Family is dead.
The individual is all that's left.

I know that sounds nihilistic, but I think it's true.

Ann, family isn't dead where I'm from, and it's still possible even for an aspie to trust a few people. I think that's because the area I'm in is more conservative.

Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with individualism, especially for aspies. But for NT's it can be carried too far, and what has happened on Wall Street in recent years is a good example of individualism's downside. All the people who caused this mess cared about was their own benefit; nothing else mattered.

Well of course, anything is hypocrisy if done under false pretenses. But there have been doubtlessly incidents where critics of civil rights have maintained claims were illegitimate when they were not.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Wall Street liberal? I always hear defenders of capitalism/conservatism advocating the rights of the individual, even at the expense of the common good. And it's this same brand of conservatism that has made an alliance with the religious right, and superficially adopted Christian rhetoric of God and family values. But that rhetoric only comes up to bash gay marriage, but is conveniently forgotten when it comes to feeding and housing poor families with children.
Incidentally, Texas isn't the only place on the map where God and family are held in the highest esteem. That certainly applies for me here in the very blue state of Washington.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bill, it sounds to me as if you need to do some research into liberalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

The Republican party is now, and always has been, a vaguely right-liberal party while selling itself as something else to voters. For example, since real conservatism is about conserving a particular people and their ways, in a particular time and place, the very idea of unbridled free trade or open borders is anathema to it. Being liberalism, and being naturally elitist, these policies without a care for the interests of average Americans. Conservatives say Americans should come first in America, and that isn't happening with either party. Both have sold their souls, and not to the constituents they are charged with representing.

Having said this, many, if not most, Wall Street types are New York Democrats.

Depends on who's calling what illegitimate......

Your use of the word liberal, and mine differ due to semantics. I'm using the word in it's modern context - that is, politically to the left. Republicans hardly fit that definition.
And Wall Street is made up of New York Democrats? According to who? Most of Wall Street's business denizens voted Republican against Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

/\
This is a copy & paste from another post of mine from yesterday.

Simple minded, huh?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer